A question aimed at dan ranks, but anyone can answer

[skribs]

Are you learning how to better combine or apply basic building blocks you've learned before, or are you learning strikes or grappling techniques you have never done before?

A boxer will learn new stuff even after years of boxing, but it's new strategies and tactics, not new punches.

Some of the new scenarios involve new building blocks to work with.

In addition to strategies and tactics, I'm still getting corrections on my technique and learning new variations of techniques.

 

[Kababayan]

New forms and techniques. Some of them were just...weird. Personally even when I got first dan, I made very little progress beyond because there is such a wealth of techniques pre 1st dan that I cared more about practicing that stuff then filling my head with anything new.

This is why I love learning new systems every few years.

 

[PhotonGuy]

in your style, do you have higher level techniques, or even techniques that are not shown explicitly in your forms?

in tang so do, there are a fair number of kicks that are not in the hyungs. but are critieria for higher dan ranks.

yes, some MA are technique driven, and have no forms. So.. bjj isn't really in the scope of this question.

In my first style you would learn katas for higher dan ranks but to the best of my knowledge you would not learn any higher level techniques, not after making 1st dan. You might have to do certain techniques for higher dan ranks but they would be techniques that you would've learned earlier although you hadn't been tested on them. With higher level techniques, they might be more difficult to do but that doesn't mean they're more effective or even as effective as the lower level techniques or that you would use them that much. No matter what level you get to and no matter how far you go in the martial arts I would say about ninety percent of the techniques you use you learn when you're a white belt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

in your style, do you have higher level techniques, or even techniques that are not shown explicitly in your forms?

in tang so do, there are a fair number of kicks that are not in the hyungs. but are critieria for higher dan ranks.

yes, some MA are technique driven, and have no forms. So.. bjj isn't really in the scope of this question.

I'm going to give two answers to this: my curriculum, and the mainline curriculum (as is used in the NGAA).

NGAA: Yes and no. There are a few techniques reserved for shodan (tested for nidan). This is almost exclusively limited to nunchaku and stick techniques, which are mostly never touched prior to shodan. The only "forms" in that curriculum are one-step kata (called "Classical Techniques") that cover the core NGA grappling techniques, and at least 25% (arguably as much as 50%) of the curriculum is not within those forms: kicks, strikes, ground work, weapon defense, blending movement, etc.

My curriculum: Definitely and not really. There's much that's not within the forms I use. I do have Classical forms that are pretty close to the Classical Techniques used in the NGAA. I teach more "techniques" beyond those than most in the NGAA would, and only maintain those forms because I am used to using and teaching them. I also added some long-form kata (not very long by most folks' standards) that include more strikes, some weapons (single-stick, double-stick, and staff). But they are not meant to be encyclopedic. They are there to provide another way to practice movement, something for students to work on outside class (most grappling has little to work on outside class, and most students don't have a heavy bag). So there's a lot I didn't try to capture in those forms, though the long forms cover a significant portion of what's not covered in the Classical forms.

But none of that is really higher-level stuff. It's just stuff not in the forms. Forms are for practicing stuff I teach, and don't provide any real guidance as to what is taught/used. Does that make sense?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my experiance many schools use "higher level techniques" as a way to keep students around. While in reality for a technique to be effective under stress it needs to be relatively simple.

In reality the only thing separating pros from early students should be practice and understanding of the basics.

There are some techniques that are held for a later level in grappling, because they require better control or are more gap-fillers (or even esoteric - for digging into principles) rather than core to functional application. Other than those, I entirely agree.

 

[PhotonGuy]

In addition to strategies and tactics, I'm still getting corrections on my technique and learning new variations of techniques.

You're always going to get or make corrections on your techniques and learn new variations as you make new discoveries. The founder of Shotokan, Funakoshi, after fifty or so years of doing martial arts he found a way of throwing the reverse punch that was a little bit better, but the basic technique is the same.

 

[PhotonGuy]

New forms and techniques. Some of them were just...weird. Personally even when I got first dan, I made very little progress beyond because there is such a wealth of techniques pre 1st dan that I cared more about practicing that stuff then filling my head with anything new.

I've found its better to trust quality than quantity. Its better to practice just a few moves and get them to the pinnacle of perfection rather than to try to practice many techniques and get them to be just so so.

 

[skribs]

I've found its better to trust quality than quantity. Its better to practice just a few moves and get them to the pinnacle of perfection rather than to try to practice many techniques and get them to be just so so.

Yes, but there's also a point in time where you've got your foundational techniques to an A level and most of your intermediate techniques to a B level and you're starting to plateau on those. It's not a bad time to add in some advanced techniques to shake things up, so long as you still spend time keeping your foundations and improving your intermediate ones.

I am a 3rd degree in TKD and an orange belt in Hapkido. While I think that eventually the Hapkido will be very useful to have, and will maybe take over Taekwondo as my preferred set of techniques to use in a real situation, if I needed to defend myself right now I'd use Taekwondo, because I'm much more comfortable with that.

But if you're at a point where you still have a lot to work on to improve the techniques you do know...well, then do that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've found its better to trust quality than quantity. Its better to practice just a few moves and get them to the pinnacle of perfection rather than to try to practice many techniques and get them to be just so so.

Agreed. I prefer to look at variations of techniques and principles. Of course, some of us (me included) need something new to tinker with from time to time, even if it's not particularly useful.

 

[TSDTexan]

Yes, but there's also a point in time where you've got your foundational techniques to an A level and most of your intermediate techniques to a B level and you're starting to plateau on those. It's not a bad time to add in some advanced techniques to shake things up, so long as you still spend time keeping your foundations and improving your intermediate ones.

I am a 3rd degree in TKD and an orange belt in Hapkido. While I think that eventually the Hapkido will be very useful to have, and will maybe take over Taekwondo as my preferred set of techniques to use in a real situation, if I needed to defend myself right now I'd use Taekwondo, because I'm much more comfortable with that.

But if you're at a point where you still have a lot to work on to improve the techniques you do know...well, then do that.

i think if Hapkido had groundfighting, in lieu, of so much weapons it might be close to perfect, at least from a technique driven MA view.

i have yet to train hapkido, but have had a fair amount of exposure to aikido. While they are not the same.... If i could have had it differently, it would have been Hapkido, not aikido that i was exposed to.

I am grateful for the experience that i had in aikido, i truly believe that hapkido is more practical, than aikido.

The reason for this belief, is the philosophical underpinnings shape the training. Aikido's overall approach to the issue of violence, and Hapkido's approach are night and day different.

While there is a lot of convergence with regard to biomechanics and trapping/locking.... one is (in my personal opinion) too receptive and too passive... which isnt budo, while the other is far quicker to go to war and escalate (with agreessive striking and kicking) until a decision is obtained.

i did improve a huge amount with my kote gaeshi,
and Aikido's nikyo is frankly superb.

I wish there was a university that had a number of colleges on campus that were just MA disciplines.

I would take wing chun, hapkido, uechi ryu karate, judo and bjj. as my core group studies. and as minor electives... FMA of some kind, and muy boran.

 

[skribs]

i think if Hapkido had groundfighting, in lieu, of so much weapons it might be close to perfect, at least from a technique driven MA view.

i have yet to train hapkido, but have had a fair amount of exposure to aikido. While they are not the same.... If i could have had it differently, it would have been Hapkido, not aikido that i was exposed to.

I am grateful for the experience that i had in aikido, i truly believe that hapkido is more practical, than aikido.

The reason for this belief, is the philosophical underpinnings shape the training. Aikido's overall approach to the issue of violence, and Hapkido's approach are night and day different.

While there is a lot of convergence with regard to biomechanics and trapping/locking.... one is (in my personal opinion) too receptive and too passive... which isnt budo, while the other is far quicker to go to war and escalate (with agreessive striking and kicking) until a decision is obtained.

i did improve a huge amount with my kote gaeshi,
and Aikido's nikyo is frankly superb.

I wish there was a university that had a number of colleges on campus that were just MA disciplines.

I would take wing chun, hapkido, uechi ryu karate, judo and bjj. as my core group studies. and as minor electives... FMA of some kind, and muy boran.

There hasn't been too much weapon-related stuff at my Hapkido school, and there is a little bit of ground-fighting. I've been thinking of what I would like to take in the future. I definitely plan to go to 5th dan in Taekwondo (which I should in 7 years) and I'll probably get 2nd or 3rd dan in Hapkido by then. After that, I'm thinking of boxing to really practice how do defend against punches, or either BJJ or wrestling to work on the ground game.

But that will be 7-10 years from now and I'll be in my late 30s or early 40s before I make the switch.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I am a 3rd degree in TKD and an orange belt in Hapkido. While I think that eventually the Hapkido will be very useful to have, and will maybe take over Taekwondo as my preferred set of techniques to use in a real situation, if I needed to defend myself right now I'd use Taekwondo, because I'm much more comfortable with that.

If you needed to defend yourself you wouldn't use either Taekwondo or Hapkido, or you would be much less successful at defending yourself, at least you would be if you were to think about what you're doing or which art you're using. In a real fight you don't say to yourself, "I am going to use a Taekwondo round kick followed this Hapkido joint lock," ect. or you will lose the fight. You just do what comes to you, whatever works best for you in the situation, without thinking. So to be really good at defending yourself in a real self defense situation, you don't use your martial art(s). You do but you don't.

 

[JR 137]

If you needed to defend yourself you wouldn't use either Taekwondo or Hapkido, or you would be much less successful at defending yourself, at least you would be if you were to think about what you're doing or which art you're using. In a real fight you don't say to yourself, "I am going to use a Taekwondo round kick followed this Hapkido joint lock," ect. or you will lose the fight. You just do what comes to you, whatever works best for you in the situation, without thinking. So to be really good at defending yourself in a real self defense situation, you don't use your martial art(s). You do but you don't.

You use your instincts and muscle memory rather than contemplating what “style” and techniques you are and aren’t going to use.

Competition and sparring are different, obviously.

 

[skribs]

You use your instincts and muscle memory rather than contemplating what “style” and techniques you are and aren’t going to use.

Competition and sparring are different, obviously.

I think about it ahead of time what types of techniques I would use in a given situation. I also think my instincts would be to roundhouse kick over a wristlock at this point.

 

[oftheherd1]

I used to train TKD under Billy Blanks. There were techniques that we trained and used that I do not remember ever seeing in any forms.

Edit - or in any forms from any style that I've seen.

I have mentioned before about 2nd Dan Hapkido techniques I taught to a 4th Dan TKD student. He recognized 4 or 5 techniques as being what appeared to be nonsensical moves of no practical use, from the forms he had learned. When questioned, the students were told it was the art of martial arts.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think about it ahead of time what types of techniques I would use in a given situation. I also think my instincts would be to roundhouse kick over a wristlock at this point.

Certainly if you have time to recognize an attack and apply a kick that isn't a bad idea. But grappling does work.

Personally, I would think first of a reverse spin hook kick to my opponent's plant ankle. It is faster and still is devastating.
\
But nothing wrong with your thinking, especially in that your primary art is TKD.

 

[oftheherd1]

i think if Hapkido had groundfighting, in lieu, of so much weapons it might be close to perfect, at least from a technique driven MA view.

i have yet to train hapkido, but have had a fair amount of exposure to aikido. While they are not the same.... If i could have had it differently, it would have been Hapkido, not aikido that i was exposed to.

I am grateful for the experience that i had in aikido, i truly believe that hapkido is more practical, than aikido.

...

There hasn't been too much weapon-related stuff at my Hapkido school, and there is a little bit of ground-fighting. I've been thinking of what I would like to take in the future. I definitely plan to go to 5th dan in Taekwondo (which I should in 7 years) and I'll probably get 2nd or 3rd dan in Hapkido by then. After that, I'm thinking of boxing to really practice how do defend against punches, or either BJJ or wrestling to work on the ground game.

But that will be 7-10 years from now and I'll be in my late 30s or early 40s before I make the switch.

In the Hapkido I studied, we only had ground fighting to escape from being on the ground. There were a couple of techniques, one where we took the opponent to the ground in a leg lock and rolled him by our own rolling, which would take out his knees. Another was a headlock defense where if the opponent's adrenaline was up, he might pull us to the ground when we put him down.The result of that would be a very powerful knee kick to the opponents short ribs, delivered as we fell/got dragged to him. So although we did have some ground game, it resembled BJJ in no way. BJJ is popular and obviously has its place in MA, but a Hapkidoist simply would not like to go to the ground and stay there, and just would not understand the idea of competition. In that you are correct. Hapkido is defense oriented, and if attacked, we just want to get in, do what we have to and leave.

Weapons, well we learned some very rudimentary sword work after 1st Dan. But that was more to learn sword defense. We learned unarmed sword defense and defense armed with a short stick. There was one teacher I met who taught the use of nuchaku. He was gracious enough to teach me some rudiments which I still occasionally practice to this day. Other than that, we didn't have any weapon use at first to second dan. Now from 2nd Dan to 3rd Dan, it was primarily use of the short stick in defense, but no ground work.

 

[skribs]

Certainly if you have time to recognize an attack and apply a kick that isn't a bad idea. But grappling does work.

Personally, I would think first of a reverse spin hook kick to my opponent's plant ankle. It is faster and still is devastating.
\
But nothing wrong with your thinking, especially in that your primary art is TKD.

I'm not saying grappling doesn't work. I'm saying that as a 3rd Dan in TKD and a not-even-Dan in HKD, kicking works better if I need to defend myself.

In the Hapkido I studied, we only had ground fighting to escape from being on the ground. There were a couple of techniques, one where we took the opponent to the ground in a leg lock and rolled him by our own rolling, which would take out his knees. Another was a headlock defense where if the opponent's adrenaline was up, he might pull us to the ground when we put him down.The result of that would be a very powerful knee kick to the opponents short ribs, delivered as we fell/got dragged to him. So although we did have some ground game, it resembled BJJ in no way. BJJ is popular and obviously has its place in MA, but a Hapkidoist simply would not like to go to the ground and stay there, and just would not understand the idea of competition. In that you are correct. Hapkido is defense oriented, and if attacked, we just want to get in, do what we have to and leave.

Weapons, well we learned some very rudimentary sword work after 1st Dan. But that was more to learn sword defense. We learned unarmed sword defense and defense armed with a short stick. There was one teacher I met who taught the use of nuchaku. He was gracious enough to teach me some rudiments which I still occasionally practice to this day. Other than that, we didn't have any weapon use at first to second dan. Now from 2nd Dan to 3rd Dan, it was primarily use of the short stick in defense, but no ground work.

Our HKD is more of an elective to our TKD. In the TKD, we do some minor weapon work, so that doesn't need to be in our HKD class.

 

[now disabled]

i think if Hapkido had groundfighting, in lieu, of so much weapons it might be close to perfect, at least from a technique driven MA view.

i have yet to train hapkido, but have had a fair amount of exposure to aikido. While they are not the same.... If i could have had it differently, it would have been Hapkido, not aikido that i was exposed to.

I am grateful for the experience that i had in aikido, i truly believe that hapkido is more practical, than aikido.

The reason for this belief, is the philosophical underpinnings shape the training. Aikido's overall approach to the issue of violence, and Hapkido's approach are night and day different.

While there is a lot of convergence with regard to biomechanics and trapping/locking.... one is (in my personal opinion) too receptive and too passive... which isnt budo, while the other is far quicker to go to war and escalate (with agreessive striking and kicking) until a decision is obtained.

i did improve a huge amount with my kote gaeshi,
and Aikido's nikyo is frankly superb.

I wish there was a university that had a number of colleges on campus that were just MA disciplines.

I would take wing chun, hapkido, uechi ryu karate, judo and bjj. as my core group studies. and as minor electives... FMA of some kind, and muy boran.

what style of Aikido were you exposed to?

 

[TSDTexan]

what style of Aikido were you exposed to?

primarily, but not formally.... i came as vistiting tsd practitioner.

in fact i i haven't ever formally enrolled in an akido dojo.